Back
Village Vendetta Ends After 35 Years: Calcutta HC Grants Acquittal in Bamboo Brawl
In a dramatic turn to a decades-old rural clash, the has acquitted Baneshwar Mahato, setting aside his conviction for in a 1990 land dispute. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay ruled that prosecution evidence was marred by inconsistencies, entitling the petitioner to the . This challenged an appellate order upholding Mahato's two-year sentence under , while acquitting eight co-accused.
Roots of the Rural Rumble
The feud traced back to , in Purulia, West Bengal, over disputed land near Bishnupada Mahato's 'Khamar Bari' farmstead. Prosecution alleged nine men, including petitioner Baneshwar Mahato, formed an armed with weapons like 'farsa' (a sharp cutting tool). They trespassed, felled bamboos, and on Bishnupada's protest, assaulted him—severing his right thumb, which later required amputation.
Bishnupada filed Case No. 204/1990, leading to charges under . A counter-case (No. 205/1990) emerged, stemming from the same incident tied to a wall construction dispute on land claimed by both sides. Trial court convicted all in ; sessions court acquitted eight in but upheld Baneshwar's sentence. The revision lingered until Justice Bandyopadhyay's verdict.
Clashing Claims in Court
Petitioner's Defence: A Mutual Melee
Baneshwar's counsel highlighted the simmering land dispute, evidenced by prior proceedings and an amin survey. Eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2, Bishnupada's sisters) claimed he struck the thumb while victim resisted, but inconsistencies abounded—e.g., varying accounts of injury side and bamboo count. Crucially, defence witnesses proved co-accused like Jyoti and Deben Mahato suffered sharp scalp wounds and cuts (DW3's reports), suggesting a two-sided fight, not one-way aggression. Victim PW3 admitted being accused in the counter-case; investigating officer PW6 never examined him pre-charge-sheet.
Prosecution's Push: Eyewitness and Medical Corroboration
State argued reliable prosecution witnesses (PW1-4) and medical evidence (PW4 Dr. Pakrashi) proved the case. Victim narrated assault by Baneshwar and others at 10:20 AM; doctor noted farsa-consistent injuries. Family eyewitnesses detailed the encirclement and blow. They urged dismissal, claiming evidence met the beyond-reasonable-doubt threshold.
Peeling Back the Evidence Layers
Justice Bandyopadhyay meticulously reappraised testimony, noting no precedents were cited but emphasizing core criminal principles: and specific attribution of overt acts. Key gaps included:
- Victim PW3 named Baneshwar and Deben for assaults but told doctor only a group attacked—omitting specifics on thumb injury.
- Injuries could result from resisting blows, per medical opinion.
- First-trial naming of Baneshwar; earlier statements vague.
- Unexamined victim by IO; suppressed accused injuries indicating "combat."
- 8 km PS dash post-10:20 AM injury raised promptness doubts.
The court clarified: mere presence in a "commotion and outrageous assemblage" doesn't sustain Section 326 conviction without clear assailant ID. Mutual scuffle from land row tilted scales to doubt.
Court's Cutting Remarks
Key Observations from the Bench:
"PW-3, being the victim did not expressly named, the present petitioner, to be the perpetrator, in the presence of the Medical Officer."(Para 15)
"The proclaimed eyewitness deposed, the petitioner attempted to assault the PW-3, by farsa, who tried to save himself through his right hand, resulting in the injury suffered by him on the right thumb."(Para 16)
"Under such circumstances, the victim, amidst commotion, and outrageous assemblage must have failed to detect the person who had actually tried to inflict the blow."(Para 18)
"Since, the injury suffered by the victim cannot be obliterated."(Para 18)
"the prosecution having failed to prove the case , the petitioner... is entitled to a ."(Para 19)
Verdict Vindicates: Bail from Bailiwick of Blame
The revision (CRR 1521/) was allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner discharged. No costs ordered; judgment sent to trial court and PS for compliance.
This ruling underscores caution in group clash convictions, especially land disputes with counter-claims. It may embolden defences highlighting evidentiary cracks, medical ambiguities, and suppressed mutual injuries—potentially easing burdens in similar rural feuds lingering in courts.
